|
you seem to be under the impression that you are arguing for reproductive rights (which no one is disputing) when it seems to be tipping the scales toward advocating genocide. Do you consider abortion a socially or medically viable cure for genetic defects? This is as opposed to a case-by-case basis where the individual is the ultimate decider and is not coerced in either direction by society or the medical community at large.
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Also seriously who's advocating for MANDATORY abortions, this is literally you saying it shouldn't be a choice women have at all vs someone saying yea they probably have the right to decide if they want to have a baby regardless of if it has a disease or not. Yea if there's someone saying we HAVE TO abort every autistic kid that's hosed up but last I checked that wasn't the issue at all? rkajdi posted:But then they don't exist. What is the big deal? Nobody was killed, and nobody's bodily autonomy was removed. You're playing into the anti-choicer's meme of "abortion=murder" at this point. We don't say birth control pills kill thousands of people by making them not exist-- or rather those of us who aren't the American Taliban don't do so. That's the way I construed the first line. I could be wrong which is why I asked outright instead of dancing with euphemisms for 97 pages.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Nah, I was confused because a prenatal test for autism is not currently available so I found it strange that someone would advocate for abortion in the case of autism, as it is advocated for in the case of Tay-Sachs, risk factors not-withstanding. They were actually saying: women have the choice regardless and if people start saying "the child could be high-functioning even though the fetus tested positive for autism" it will be used against reproductive rights. There is another thread for this though. I would like someone to come up with a cogent explanation as to how the MMR vaccine causes autism in light of the genetic and environmental factors that have since been correlated to autism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Your example is extreme and has no bearing on this case. Not vaccinating a child is negligence.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
With not vaccinating you are saying "my beliefs matter more than the health of my children and others" - a thing that borders on criminal. Whatever you said- some needlessly cruel parable both to the hypothetical child and to anyone reading it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Yea, I considered them. The welfare of the child and children everywhere not dying from horrible diseases. Rather than deflecting show proof the benefits of vaccinations are outweighed by the negatives. But that is your problem, isn't it? You can't see the benefits of something, you can only see how its offensive to some nebulous idea of freedom. Freedom is, in part, health, the health of hundreds of children not contracting a preventable disease because anti-vax colonies. Smell that freedom, man. It smells good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
allow me to begin your next post for you "a parents tyrannical control of a child's health from a complete ignorant and irrational belief is better than dead kids because..."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
I'm not entertaining insane hypotheticals from some far-flung future where an authoritarian government has control. I'm entertaining real life, right now. Show me that the benefits of giving children vaccinations, even against their parent's wishes, is a net negative for an individual child (a person), a group of children (a group of people) and for society at large (a large group of people). That is my standard of proof. We're not talking about injecting kids with syphilis or tuberculosis cultures or "mind-control antidepressants" like fluoride. We're talking about vaccines. Use all the crazy freedom math you want.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Oh no, sir. You made the claim of freedom under the guise of "bodily autonomy" which actually doesn't apply because we're talking about children who don't have it, as being more important than preventing thousands to tens-of-thousands of infections from rapidly communicable and deadly diseases. You post the proof.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Yea, like, in order to have a consistent philosophy you are only allowed to support one thing if you support all the things that might be tangentially related and completely unrelated to the topic. I'm addressing only Dead Reckoning's specific stance that freedom of a parent to exercise "bodily autonomy" of their child with respect to vaccines. Now you are saying people have to make up laws and have a "consistent philosophy" with completely extraneous topics. Consistency with other topics is unnecessary, we are discussing why the freedom of the parent to exercise control of a child's physical wellbeing (to the detriment of the child) is more important than the health of the child, children and society.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Lol, now he is arguing about arguments for arguments sake. Wow.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
I'm just asking for empirical and statistical proof that support your positions. That's it. I don't see how its so hard, look I'll do it: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/measles-vaccination/en/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
We have plenty of factual information that vaccines are beneficial for just about everyone who isn't allergic to eggs. This has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread but there is no standard of proof or logical reasoning that can reach people who refuse to face those facts. You aren't going to convince people who believe vaccinations are harmful that the vaccines are not, in fact, harmful. They have latched onto false information and think they are doing what is best for their child when really its not good for anyone involved. I said it before but its a tyrannical control of a child's well being. Most people know and accept there are experts with a more complete view of particular topics. Pediatricians are some of these experts and people will defer to them for the health of their child. The law even recognizes experts have more knowledge of certain topics and going against their advice is often harmful. I don't like the idea of injecting someone with something against their will or stealing their blood under "special circumstances". But when it comes to children who don't have a voice and whose parents believe what they are doing is right but are passively and actively harming their child, the state should absolutely protect the well-being of the child. We have laws for this now. Hell, I'd even stipulate you shouldn't vaccinate adults against their will. Fine. Let the cowardly people ignore the best information and pay a fine or a tax that funds vaccine research or vaccinating children and people in poverty for free at their local pharmacy. If you decide to not vaccinate your child, they have to be registered, a local hospital gets to have the list of parents and children who aren't vaccinated to warn parents ahead of an outbreak. Either its negligence or you have to pay a large yearly fine. This probably belongs in the pseudoscience megathread but I've been hearing about Candida infection leading to mental illness and holy moly its crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 19:35
|
|